Journal of Early Christian Studies

JESUS AND JOSEPH AS INTERPRETERS OF DREAMS

Jesus does not immediately interpret dreams at the beginning of the Gospel of Judas. Instead, the opening episode features Jesus laughing at his disciples for “giving thanks over the bread” (Gos. Jud. 34.1–2), probably a reference to the Eucharist.¹¹ Jesus’s derision precipitates a discussion about his identity—a common trope in early Christian gospel literature.¹² Jesus here distances himself from the god to which the Twelve were praying, and Judas likewise distinguishes himself from the other disciples with his insight: “You have come from the immortal realm of Barbelo, and he who sent you, I am not worthy to proclaim his name” (35.17–21).¹³ In response to Judas’s confession, Jesus replies, “Separate from them and I will tell [End Page 484] you the mysteries of the kingdom; not so you may go there, but so that you will mourn deeply” (35.23–27).¹⁴ The provocation of Judas’s mourning will apparently be his replacement within the Twelve (36.1–4), perhaps evincing knowledge of Acts 1.15–26. Nevertheless, Jesus disappears before communicating the mysteries to Judas (36.9–10). The following day, Jesus appears to his disciples and again laughs, this time in response to their question, “Lord, what is the great race that is more exalted than we, and holy, and not in these realms?” (36.19–21).¹⁵ Before the extant text becomes riddled with lacunae, Jesus explains, “Indeed I say to you, no one born of this realm will see [that race]; nor will any angelic army of the stars rule over that race; nor will any mortal human offspring be able to join it” (37.1–8).¹⁶ This explanation confuses the disciples, and the discussion ends (37.17–20). It is at this point in the narrative that Jesus becomes an interpreter of dreams.

At the resumption of the narrative on “another day” (Gos. Jud. 37.21), Jesus approaches his disciples, and they say to him, “Teacher, we saw you in a dream” (37.22).¹⁷ They then proceed to narrate the dream to Jesus: “[We saw] a great house [with a great] altar in it, and twelve people, whom we say are priests, and a name. There was a crowd devoted to that altar [until] the priests [came out and received] the offerings. And we ourselves continued in devotion” (38.1–11).¹⁸ Responding to Jesus’s prompt, the disciples describe the priests further.¹⁹ They say, “Some fast for two weeks; others sacrifice their very own children, and others their wives, all the while praising and behaving with humility toward one another. Some sleep with men, others murder, while others commit many sins and crimes. And the people standing over the altar invoke your [name]. And as they are engaged in their sacrificial acts, that [altar] is filled up” (38.14–39.3).²⁰ After the narrator notes that the disciples were confused, [End Page 485] Jesus questions their confusion and interprets their dream—a scathing rebuke against the disciples. The twelve priests who receive the offerings represent the disciples themselves (39.18–21, 23–24); the altar is their god (39.22–23); and the animals being sacrificed are the crowds that they lead astray (39.25–28). Jesus then continues his polemic by associating their theological miscalculation with charges of immorality (40.1–26)—amplifying the disciples’ earlier description of the priests—and by admonishing the disciples to cease these sacrificial activities (41.1–9).

In response, the disciples implore Jesus, “[Cleanse] us from our [sins] that we committed in the error of the angels” (Gos. Jud. 41.11–13), but Jesus says, “It’s impossible [. . .],” explaining—in the finale of a series of metaphors—that no baker can “feed the whole creation under [heaven]” (41.25–42.1).²¹ Jesus then rejects the disciples’ further appeal for help: “Stop contending with me. Each of you has his own star [. . .]” (42.6–8), and, “I was not sent to the corruptible race, but to the mighty and incorruptible race” (42.11–14). After this interpretation, Jesus “left and [took Judas] Iscariot with him” (42.23–24), and he tells him about “water on the high mountain” coming down “to water the garden of god and the [fruit] that will endure” (42.25–43.11)—a metaphor, Jesus explains, for certain humans whose “souls will live” and “will be taken up” when they die (43.15–23).²² For the others, those of the “defiled race,” it is impossible for “their souls to go up to the realms on high” (43.26–44.13).²³ Following this instruction, Jesus leaves (44.13–14).

The narrative resumes abruptly with Judas asking Jesus, “Teacher, just as you listened to all of them, now listen to me. For I have seen a great vision” (Gos. Jud. 44.15–18).²⁴ After Jesus laughs at him, Judas relates his vision (44.24–45.12). In his dream, the Twelve are stoning and chasing after Judas until he stumbles upon a house, the size of which Judas’s “eyes could not measure” (45.3–4). As Judas describes it, “Great people were surrounding it, and that house was roofed with lightning. And in the middle of the house there was [. . .]” (45.5–10).²⁵ In contrast to the earlier dream of [End Page 486] the Twelve, Judas’s dream report functions as a vehicle for a request: “Teacher, receive me too with these people” (45.11–12), that is, with the inhabitants of the house in his dream. Jesus responds with a disappointing answer, “Your star has led you astray, Judas” (45.13), explaining that “no mortally born human is worthy to enter the house that you saw” (45.14–17). Jesus locates that house “in the realm with the holy angels” and specifies that it is reserved for “the holy ones” (45.17–24), presumably a reference to the incorruptible race. These explanations, Jesus concludes, comprise “the mysteries of the kingdom” (45.25–26).²⁶ Finally, Jesus tells Judas, “And [. . .] has been sent [on high] over the twelve realms” (46.2–4).²⁷ The content of the text lost to a lacuna is suggested by Judas’s response: “Teacher, surely my own seed does not dominate over the rulers” (46.5–7).²⁸ Jesus’s interpretation of Judas’s vision thus includes a prediction that Judas will rule over others. In this way the gospel’s two dream-interpretation scenes conclude. Later, however, the dialogue between Jesus and Judas culminates with a vision of stars surrounding a cloud, and Jesus identifies Judas with “the leading star” (57.18–21).²⁹ Of course, readers with the appropriate cultural competence can observe that these scenes [End Page 487] connect the Gospel of Judas to the Joseph story in Genesis and can project the logic of the latter onto the former, a process that can ultimately help readers reconcile the gospel’s negative evaluation of Judas with the positive value it attributes to the result of the betrayal of Jesus.

One of Joseph’s characteristic features in the book of Genesis is his interpretation of dreams. Philo of Alexandria accordingly refers to Joseph as a “dreamer” (ἐνυπνιαστής) and an “interpreter of dreams” (ὀνειροπόλος) (Somn. 2.6.42).³⁰ In total, there are three dream-interpretation scenes involving Joseph in Gen 37–50, all at pivotal moments and all in pairs. Arguably most important for the present discussion is the first dream- interpretation scene. Toward the beginning of his story in Genesis, Joseph recounts two of his own dreams, one to his brothers and another to both his father and his brothers—and both dreams are easily interpreted by those listening (Gen 37.5–11). In the first dream, Joseph imagines that he and his brothers “were binding sheaves in the middle of the plain, and [Joseph’s] sheaf rose and stood upright, and [the brothers’] sheaves, turning around, prostrated themselves to [his] sheaf” (37.7).³¹ Joseph’s brothers correctly interpret their sheaves as representing themselves, prefiguring a situation in which Joseph reigns over them (37.8). Joseph then sees another dream wherein “the sun and the moon and eleven stars prostrated themselves to [him]” (37.9), with the sun and moon referring to Joseph’s father and mother and the eleven stars to his brothers, as interpreted by Jacob (37.11).³² These dreams (and their straightforward interpretations) are not well received. The brothers develop hatred and jealousy toward Joseph, and Jacob openly rebukes him (37.8, 10–11). In Philo’s re-narration of this story in On Joseph, the brothers deride Joseph as “the dream-driveller” (ὀνειροπλῆγα) and “the dreamer” (ἐνυπνιαστήν) (Ios. 12).³³ Ultimately, Joseph’s dreams and their interpretations provoke the brothers’ decision to sell him into slavery, a scene that I discuss in greater detail in the next section.

Joseph’s prophetic dreams in Gen 37 are so straightforward that they [End Page 488] do not require Joseph himself to interpret them; his acumen as a dream interpreter is featured instead in the two remaining dream-interpretation scenes. Following the episode with Potiphar’s wife, Joseph finds himself imprisoned, and he is soon joined by Pharaoh’s two eunuchs, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker (Gen 40.2–3). Both promptly receive dreams that leave them visibly troubled (40.5–6), and Joseph convinces them to describe the dreams (40.7–8). First the chief cupbearer reports,

In my sleep, a vine was before me. And on the vine were three stems, and it was thriving, having produced shoots—the grapes of a bunch of grapes were ripe. And the cup of Pharaoh was in my hand, and I took the bunch of grapes, and I squeezed it out into the cup, and I gave the cup into the hands of Pharaoh.

(Gen 40.9–11)

Joseph proceeds to interpret the cupbearer’s dream favorably: after three days, Pharaoh will remember the cupbearer and restore him to his office (40.12–13). Heartened by this interpretation, the chief baker relates his own dream, “I also saw a dream, and I imagined I was taking up three baskets of coarse meal loaves upon my head. Now in the topmost basket was baker’s work of all sorts, which the king, Pharaoh, eats, and the birds of the sky were devouring them from the basket that was atop my head” (40.16–17). Joseph’s interpretation of this dream is structurally similar to his interpretation of the cupbearer’s, but with an unfavorable—and graphic—outcome: after three days, Pharaoh will behead the baker and mount his body on a pole, and birds will consume his flesh (40.18–19). And, of course, it happens for the cupbearer and the baker in accordance with Joseph’s interpretations (40.20–22).

After interpreting the cupbearer’s dream, however, Joseph asks that he remember him before Pharaoh (Gen 41.14–15). Although the narrator reports that the cupbearer instead forgets Joseph when he is released from prison (41.23), he does eventually remember Joseph’s request when Pharaoh himself receives two troubling dreams—dreams that the dream interpreters and wise men of Egypt are unable to explain (41.9–13). Pharaoh thus sends for Joseph (41.14). Pharaoh’s two dreams, which are recounted by the narrator (41.1–8) and by Pharaoh (41.17–24), are singular in purpose—as Joseph himself observes (41.25). The seven beautiful and select cows from Pharaoh’s first dream and the seven full and beautiful ears of corn from his second dream both represent seven years. Joseph explains, “Behold, seven years are coming—great plenty in all the land of Egypt” (41.29). Similarly, the seven ugly and scrawny cows from Pharaoh’s first dream and the seven scrawny and wind-whipped ears of corn from his second dream both represent seven additional years, and in Pharaoh’s dreams these latter groups of seven devour the earlier groups of [End Page 489] seven. Again Joseph explains, “And seven years of famine will come after these, and they will forget the abundance in all the land of Egypt, and the famine will consume the land, and the plenty will not be observable in the land because of the famine that will come after these, for it will be severe” (41.30–31). Accordingly, Joseph advises Pharaoh to govern in such a way as to stockpile enough food to endure the severe famine. Of course, Pharaoh appoints Joseph over this project, and the result is the sustenance of not only Egypt but also the family of Jacob (see 45.4–8; 50.20).

There are several notable similarities between the presentation of Jesus in the Gospel of Judas and that of Joseph in Genesis. Perhaps most readily apparent is that both narratives feature pairs of dream-interpretation scenes. The Twelve and Judas both report dreams to Jesus, which he interprets, and the Joseph story in Genesis includes three dream-interpretation scenes, each of which contains a pair of dream reports with interpretations, and Joseph himself is the interpreter in the latter two scenes. Importantly, in both Genesis and the Gospel of Judas, key elements within the dreams correspond to characters or events at the narrative level. In this respect, the dream of the Twelve bears a particular resemblance to the dreams in Genesis, especially those of Joseph. Not only are these dreams populated by stand-ins representing the dreamers and those around them, but the dream reports are also greeted with a resounding rebuke from the interpreters. The Gospel of Judas also reproduces language and imagery that appear in the Joseph story—note especially the prominence of astral imagery and the mention of a baker. Additionally, Jesus’s interpretation of Judas’s dream and his explanation of a vision of stars toward the end of the Gospel of Judas—both of which entail the prediction that Judas will rule over others—recall Joseph’s second, cosmos-themed dream in Gen 37, which predicts that Joseph will rule over his brothers and parents.³⁴ Arguably [End Page 490] the least ambiguous connection between the Gospel of Judas and the Joseph story in Genesis, however, is the verbal parallel between questions asked by Judas and by his Genesis namesake.

“WHAT PROFIT?”: JUDASES’ BETRAYALS

The exchange that follows Jesus’s interpretation of Judas’s dream has received much scholarly attention, but not often for the reasons that I foreground here. Jesus responds that he will instruct Judas regarding the nature of the holy race, but he again stipulates that Judas is excluded from their number and will mourn (Gos. Jud. 46.8–13; see also 35.23–27). With evocative phrasing, Judas asks, “What profit (ΟΥ ΠΕ ΠΕϨΟΥΟ) have I gained by your setting me apart from that race?” (46.16–18; see also 53.8–9).³⁵ It is Jesus’s reply that has attracted the attention of many scholars: “You will become the thirteenth, and you will be cursed by the rest of the races, and you will rule over them. In the last days they <will > to you. And you will not go up to the holy race” (46.19–47.1).³⁶ Jesus then tells Judas, “[Come], and I will teach you about the [mysteries] which [. . .] human will see” (47.2–4).³⁷ What follows over the next several pages of the gospel can be described as a broadly Sethian cosmogony (47.5–53.7).

Although it is common for scholars to focus on what Jesus means when he says Judas will become “the thirteenth” (especially in connection with the Jesus-Judas dialogue that follows the cosmogonic teaching, which I discuss in the next section), Louis Painchaud foregrounds Judas’s question in Gos. Jud. 46.16–18. Given that the Septuagintal rendering of Judah’s name is identical to Judas’s name in Greek literature (which is itself simply transliterated in Coptic), Painchaud writes, “it seems possible that the Gospel of Judas seeks to establish typological parallelism between Judas Iscariot and Judah the fourth son of Jacob, as suggested by the fact that it places on the apostle’s lips the question, ‘What profit . . . ?’ that Judah posed to his brothers (Genesis 37:26). Further research in this direction could prove rewarding.”³⁸ While I agree with Johanna Brankaer’s evaluation that Judas’s name and question are “too tenuous” to support the [End Page 491] interpretation proposed by Painchaud and Serge Cazelais—namely, that the question signals that Judas “will receive a special authority,” just as Judah does in Gen 49.8–12 and in later traditions—the attribution of similar advantage-questioning phrases to both in Genesis and in the Gospel of Judas does merit careful inquiry.³⁹

In the narrative that follows the first dream-interpretation scene in Genesis, Joseph’s brothers plot to kill him, only to change course in the end (Gen 37.12–36). Israel sends Joseph to check in on his brothers, who are shepherding in Dothan. The brothers see Joseph coming, however, and “maliciously intended to kill him” (37.18). The narrative continues, “And they said, each one to his brother, ‘Behold, that dreamer is coming. Now, then, come, let us kill him and hurl him into one of the pits and say, “A wicked animal devoured him,” and we will see what his dreams will be’” (37.19–20). Nevertheless, Reuben speaks out against the murder, and they resolve to throw him alive into a pit instead. When they subsequently sit down to eat, they look up and see Ishmaelite traders traveling to Egypt (37.25). Inspired by this sight, Judah says, “What is the advantage (τί χρήσιμον) if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to these Ishmaelites” (37.26–27).

The logic of the canonical narrative is disjointed, however.⁴⁰ Despite the resolve expressed by Judah and his brothers in Gen 37.27, the following [End Page 492] verse states instead that previously unmentioned Midianite traders withdraw Joseph from the pit and sell him to the Ishmaelite traders (37.28; see 39.1)—before also stating that the Midianite traders sold Joseph to Potiphar in Egypt (37.36). Similarly, Joseph later attributes his presence in Egypt both to being kidnapped (40.15) and to his brothers selling him (45.5). These inconsistencies are most credibly explained as byproducts of the compilation of two sources, probably J and E.⁴¹ Accordingly, readers can be forgiven for their confusion regarding the chain of custody; indeed, the impression that the brothers themselves sold Joseph into slavery is ubiquitous, even in ancient sources. In an abbreviated re-narration of the story in the book of Jubilees, for example, the brothers sell Joseph directly to Ishmaelites, who deliver him to Egypt (Jub. 34.11).⁴² Philo likewise eliminates the discrepancies in Genesis by straightforwardly narrating the brothers’ sale of Joseph to “some merchants belonging to a caravan which was wont to carry wares from Arabia to Egypt” (Ios. 15),⁴³ attributing the idea to Judah, as in Genesis. Philo’s account lacks Judah’s musing (i.e., “what profit?”), however, and instead rationalizes Judah’s decision as compassion. Reuben is absent during the transaction, and upon returning he berates his brothers (4.16–21). When they show him their profits from the sale, Reuben retorts caustically, “A fine bargain [. . .]. Let us divide the profits. We have competed with slave-dealers for the prize of wickedness; let us wear the crown, and glory that we surpass them in cruelty” (4.18).⁴⁴ In the same way, Josephus describes in Jewish Antiquities how the brothers, at Judah’s instigation, sell Joseph to “some Arab traders of the race of Ishmaelites conveying spices and Syrian merchandise from Galadene for the Egyptian market” (A.J. 2.32–34).⁴⁵ Judah reasons that Joseph, “banished to remotest exile, would die among strangers, while they would be free from the guilt of his blood” (3.33).⁴⁶ As in Philo’s account, Rueben (here “Rubel”) is absent when the sale occurs, and, after learning of it, “he heaped abuse upon his brothers” (2.34).⁴⁷ Thus, several works re-narrating the Genesis [End Page 493] stories—all written within a few hundred years of the Gospel of Judas— attribute Joseph’s sale into slavery to his brothers at Judah’s behest.⁴⁸

Because Jesus insists repeatedly that Judas is not a member of the incorruptible race (see Gos. Jud. 35.23–27; 45.11–24; 46.8–47.1), readers may be sympathetic when Judas asks him what advantage he will gain by being set apart from that race (46.16–18). Jesus’s response, that he “will be cursed by the rest of the races” and “will rule over them” (46.21–23), anticipates Judas’s betrayal of Jesus and also partially indicates the narrative’s evaluation of both this act and the consequent crucifixion of Jesus.⁴⁹ That is to say, Judas will be universally cursed, but he will also receive a reward for his deed—it is presumably better to rule over the corruptible race rather than to submit to the rule of another as a member of that race.⁵⁰ Readers with the cultural competence to recognize the parallels identified so far—especially the connection of a question about profit posed by a man named Judah/Judas in the context of a betrayal—are equipped to consider the extent to which the logic of the Joseph story can be projected onto the Gospel of Judas. Of particular interest here is the value the book of Genesis assigns to the brothers’ betrayal of Joseph.

THE BETRAYALS OF JOSEPH IN GENESIS AND JESUS IN THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS

With the Gospel of Judas approaching its conclusion, Judas seeks clarification regarding the cosmogony described by Jesus, asking about the limited lifespan of humans (Gos. Jud. 53.8–9), the mortality of human spirits (53.17), and the activities of the races (54.14). Jesus’s lacunose response to Judas’s third question concludes, “And all the [races] will serve Saklas while sinning in my name. And your star will [rule] over the thirteenth realm” (55.10–13), and he then laughs at the stars (55.14–22). Judas asks, “Well then, what will those who were baptized in your name do?” (55.23–25).⁵¹ Jesus’s extended response includes the gospel’s first [End Page 494] references to his crucifixion (55.26–57.21), though the substance of his response to the baptism question has been lost to a lacuna (56.2–4). He says, “Tomorrow he who bears me will be tortured. Yet indeed I [say] to you (pl.), no hand of a dying mortal [will fall] upon me” (56.7–11), and, “But you yourself will do more than all of them; for the person who bears me, you shall sacrifice him. Already your horn is raised, your anger is kindled, your star has passed over, and your heart has [strayed]” (56.18–25).⁵² The ultimate result of Judas’s betrayal—though it should be noted that Gos. Jud. 57.1–5 is mostly lost to lacunae—is that “the [fruit] of the great race of Adam shall be exalted” (57.11–12). Jesus concludes his explanation of the “mysteries” to Judas with an exhortation, “Behold, you have been told everything. Raise your eyes; see the cloud, the light within it, and the stars surrounding it. And the leading star, that’s your star” (57.16–21). Judas looks up at the luminous cloud, “and he entered it” (57.24)—with “he” probably referring to Jesus.⁵³ The narrative then draws to a close: a voice speaks from the cloud (though the text of the speech is lost to lacuna [58.1–5]), “Judas stopped looking at Jesus” (58.5–6), and there is a commotion surrounding the intention of some to seize Jesus—culminating with Judas being approached by scribes and handing Jesus over to them in exchange for money (58.6–26).⁵⁴

Vigorously contested in the interpretation of the Gospel of Judas is how readers ought to understand Judas’s sacrifice of Jesus (i.e., his betrayal) and also the corresponding meaning of Jesus’s death. One proposal is that Judas’s sacrifice of “the one who bears” Jesus frees Jesus’s soul to ascend to the realm of the race of Seth, and so Judas’s act is heroic.⁵⁵ Accordingly, [End Page 495] Bart D. Ehrman argues, “Judas is not acting out of greed; he is not being driven by Satan; he is not himself a wicked man acting out the evil machinations of his heart. He is doing Jesus the greatest favor possible. He is enabling him to escape this wicked world to return to his heavenly home.”⁵⁶ The observation that, in the Gospel of Judas, Jesus does not need anyone’s enabling in order to come and go between the earthly and immortal realms (see, e.g., Gos. Jud. 36.10, 15–17; 57.24) undermines this line of reasoning, however.⁵⁷ This interpretation is also constructed, as Jonathan Cahana explains, “through problematic, or downright mistaken, readings of the Coptic” that falsely render Judas as a heroic figure.⁵⁸

A competing explanation builds on the text’s assertion that through Judas’s sacrifice of Jesus, he exceeds the Twelve in wickedness.⁵⁹ Adherents of this view observe that Jesus often ridicules the sacrificial activities of the Twelve, and so, they suggest, Judas’s sacrifice of “the one who bears” Jesus ought to be understood as a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of reality. The credibility of this approach is strengthened by emphasizing the negative assessments of Judas throughout the narrative. Summarizing this position, Painchaud explains, “Just as Epiphanius made of Judas the father of the Jews, so our gospel makes him, to a certain degree, the father of proto-orthodox Christianity and its sacrificial theology.”⁶⁰ Painchaud thus argues that this gospel presents Judas’s act of sacrificing Jesus as initiating [End Page 496] early Christian sacrificial reasoning about the significance of Jesus’s death, and this is why Judas will rule over that generation. Accordingly, this interpretation holds that Jesus’s crucifixion was ineffectual and that Judas is a villain for propagating a deception.

Nevertheless, as Cahana notes, there are no textual justifications for reading “the sacrificial understanding of Jesus’ death” as “a well-planned conspiracy contrived by Saklas and his archons in order to counteract the gnostic salvation brought by Jesus,” a precondition, he says, for this interpretation to be compelling.⁶¹ Moreover, it does not necessarily follow that a negative characterization of Judas and/or his betrayal implies a negative assessment of the crucifixion of Jesus. In fact, several scholars have argued precisely the opposite.⁶² For example, appealing to Irenaeus’s summary of the Gospel of Judas as describing “the mystery of the betrayal: through him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were dissolved” (Haer. 1.31.1), Cahana argues that the Gospel of Judas likely presents Jesus’s crucifixion as a salvific act that initiates the dissolution of all things.⁶³ Although the text of the Gospel of Judas is too lacunose for certainty on this matter, his proposal gains credibility through comparisons with comparanda from the Nag Hammadi library. Most important here are the Second Discourse of Great Seth (NHC VII,2), wherein Jesus’s crucifixion directly sets off the dissolution (Disc. Seth 58.13–59.14), and the Concept of Our Great Power (NHC VI,4), wherein Judas’s betrayal is explicitly identified as triggering the dissolution (Great Pow. 41.13–42.29).⁶⁴ He thus writes,

While it is obvious that Judas’ actions are good and they should necessarily interact with his character, and while Judas does receive gno\sis from Jesus, he is evidently not considered as a gnostic disciple in this gospel. [. . .] But how could that be explained? My suggestion is that this gospel is actually [End Page 497] the explanation of this very paradox, but that it is perhaps not entirely clear and—due to the state of the manuscript—is quite a fragmentary explanation.⁶⁵

Although the manuscript evidence for the Gospel of Judas remains lacunose, I argue that what text there is contains evidence enough of a coherent narrative explanation (though I would contest Cahana’s assertion that Judas’s actions are obviously good without qualification). Indeed, the rhetorical force of the gospel’s parallels with the Joseph story illuminates precisely this issue.

Toward the conclusion of the Joseph story in Genesis, after returning to Egypt from burying their father in Canaan, Joseph’s brothers worry that he had been withholding revenge while Jacob/Israel was alive, and so they beg for his forgiveness. In his response, Joseph reassures them, “You deliberated against me for evil, but God deliberated concerning me for good, so that it might become as it is today, so that many people might be sustained” (Gen 50.20). This sentiment echoes Joseph’s reassurances earlier in the narrative, when he first revealed his identity to his brothers (45.4–8). There Joseph says, “God sent me before you in order to leave behind a remnant of you on the earth and to nourish a great posterity of you. Now therefore it is not you who have sent me here, but rather God” (45.7–8). That Joseph’s retrospective framework influenced readers of Genesis in antiquity is illustrated by Philo, who describes the betrayal of Joseph as “great evil and great good, both exceeding anything that could have been expected” (Ios. 12).⁶⁶ In re-narrating the scene in Gen 50, Philo has Joseph reassure his brothers that he holds no ill will because he belongs “to God who converted your evil schemes into a superabundance of blessings” (Ios. 266).⁶⁷ Josephus’s Joseph likewise elaborates on this idea: “Nor yet, I think, was it through your own nature that ye did me ill, but by the will of God, working out that happiness that we now enjoy and that shall be ours hereafter,” and, “I remember no more those sins against me of which ye think yourselves guilty; I shall cease to bear you malice for them as the culprits; and as assistants in bringing God’s purposes to the present issue I tender you my thanks” (A.J. 2.161–62).⁶⁸ Although the deliberation of the brothers is evaluated negatively, the Genesis narrative—and its retellings in the ancient world—nevertheless foreground the positive value of the betrayal of Joseph and assign it to a greater plan orchestrated by God. [End Page 498]

Projecting this narrative logic onto the Gospel of Judas resolves the tension in the narrative’s characterization of Judas and its apparent valuation of the crucifixion of Jesus. The rhetorical force of the distinctive parallels between the Gospel of Judas and the Joseph story in Genesis thus likens Judas’s act of betrayal to that of Judah and the value of the betrayal of Jesus to that of Joseph. Accordingly, Judas’s betrayal of Jesus remains, as in the canonical gospels, a villainous act, just as Judah’s profit-motivated notion of selling Joseph into slavery is hardly benevolent—even when juxtaposed against the alternative proposed by his brothers. The Jesus of the Gospel of Judas consistently states that Judas is not among the elect (e.g., Gos. Jud. 35.23–27; 45.11–24; 46.8–47.1). Nevertheless, although not a hero, Judas is presented more positively than the other disciples—much like Judah in relation to his other brothers. Perhaps most importantly, just as the betrayal of Joseph led to the salvation of many during the famine, so Judas’s betrayal of Jesus leads to salvation for “the [fruit] of the great race of Adam” (57.11–12; see also 43.15–23).⁶⁹ The narrative of the Gospel of Judas thus reconciles Judas’s villainous betrayal, his position over the Twelve, and the salvific effect of Jesus’s death through its evocation of the Joseph story in Genesis.⁷⁰

CONCLUSION

The Gospel of Judas thus exhibits a number of striking similarities with the Genesis story of Joseph: both stories feature dream reports and their interpretations in sets of two; both stories feature dreams that portend future positions of domination; both stories feature betrayals that follow deliberations regarding profit or advantage; and in both stories the betrayals have salvific results. Projecting the logic of the Joseph story onto the Gospel of Judas creates a framework within which readers can [End Page 499] reconcile the gospel’s negative evaluation of Judas with the apparent positive effects of Jesus’s death.⁷¹ Readers who are familiar with the Joseph story possess categories for thinking through this dichotomy: Judah’s profit-motivated betrayal of Joseph was bad, but it resulted in the rescuing of Egypt and of Jacob’s family from severe famine. Accordingly, such readers can hold in tension the idea that Judas’s profit-motivated betrayal of Jesus was bad even though it resulted in salvation for those belonging to the incorruptible race. [End Page 500]